Post on 02-Mar-2018
transcript
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
1/25
CHAPTER ONE
THE
PROBLEM
OF
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
The
large
and
varied number of heological works which are cur-
rently available bearing the title of
Old
Testament Theology
would lead us to suppose
that
we know clearly what such a
subject is. Yet there is a considerable diversity
of
content
in
such volumes, and increasingly it has become commonplace for
them to devote a good deal
of
time
and
attention to a relatively
extended
treatment of
matters of introduction explaining what
the discipline is. If we may
judge
by the progress of scholarly
discussion
in
the past thirty years, we may feel entirely justified
in
drawing the conclusion
that
the most interesting
anq
con-
troversial aspects of the subject are to be found in these intro-
ductions . Once we know how a particular scholar intends to
. treat the subject, it is usually
not
difficult to plot with a reason-
able predictability
what
he will actually have to say about the
theological significance of the Old Testament. In other words,
the resolution of certain basic issues concerning the nature and
proper methodology of the subject tends to exercise a dominant
effect
upon what
the
Old
Testament is actually believed to
offer
by
way
of
a theology .
Two other relevant points may be made here.
The
first is
that
this pursuit of
an Old
Testament theology has been
an
exclusively Christian undertaking. It is
hard
to find more
than
a very f w tentative essays in this field from the pens ofJewish
scholars.
Secondly,
and
this may be felt to be even more surprising,
these presentations of
Old
Testament theology bear very little
relationship either to the way in which the New Testament
interprets the Old, or to the ways
in
which Christian theologians
of all periods have actually made theological use of the
Old
Testament.
In
fact, alongside the productionofspecialised
Old
Testament
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
2/25
2
OLD
TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
theologies there have still appeared a considerable number
of
important theological books which endeavour to grasp
theologically the contents
of
the Bible as a whole, .with little
more
than
passing reference to the distinctive
and
self-imposed
restraints of those who have chosen
the
narrower goal.
At
other times compromises have appeared,
n
the form
of-
volumes which set out to be Christian theologies of the
Old
Testament, but where
it
immediately becomes clear to
the
critical reader
that an
almost impossible task is being attempted.
Christian assumptions are taken to be necessary
and
proper
to the work, but their explicit description
and
nature is for
bidden because they cannot be made to conform to the histori
callimitation
of
dealing only with those ideas which are to be
found
in
the
Old
Testament. Even here, however, it is striking
to note
that
far too little space is devoted to noting the actual
ways in which Christians have made theological use of the
Old
Testament,
and
a rather arbitrary selection is made
of
par
ticular Christian connections with this literature.
Increasingly, therefore, we find
that
specialised treatments
are being called for regarding the very nature and
possibility
of
a subject calling itself Old Testament Theology .l
One
thing
at
least is clear: the appropriate methodology for such a subject
is much less obvious
than
t has frequently been assumed to be,
and
still calls forth a substantial debate.
We may begin
our
attempt to re-open the question of the
proper method for an Old
Testament theology
by
taking as
our
starting-point one
of
the simplest
and
most straightforward
of
the definitions
that
have been proposed for the subject. This is
to be found in E Jacob s Theology
o the Old
Testament
and is
chosen for its representative character:
The theology
of
the Old Testament may be defined as the
systematic account
of
the specific religious ideas which
can
be
found throughout the
Old
Testament
and
which form its pro
found unity.2
We may immediately seize upon those words which raise the
most far-reaching questions about the subject,
and
the possi
bility of fulfilling its demands. These are:
systematic
- religious
ideas -
uniry. In the first place we may take
t
for granted
that
a
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
3/25
T H E PRO LEM
3
theology should be about religious ideas. But since religion is
very much more
than
a collection
of
ideas,
we
have then got to
decide
what
we should do with all the other information con
tained
in
the Old
Testament which
is
only loosely related to
these ideas. Are we to ignore that information,
or
can we in
some way make use of
it
more effectively by drawing out from
it
an ideological content? This obviously affects historical
narrative,
but
also,
in
a very profound way, concerns
what
we
do
in
order to understand prophetic pronouncements s a form
of
theology.
When we go
on
to state
that
we intend to treat these religious
ideas systematically the task becomes even more complicated,
because
it
is extremely difficult to see any way in which the
Old Testament as a whole treats its religious ideas
in
this
fashion. We find ourselves, unwittingly,
but of
necessity, im
posing a system of our own
upon
material which
is at
best
more
or
less indifferent to an order of this kind. Moreover, the
construction of such a system would suggest
that
it actually
existed
s
a conscious reality
at
some particular time.
et, with
more
than
a thousand years
of
change
and
development pre
served within its various writings, the
Old
Testament so
evidently mocks
at
our tidy-minded desire to achieve such a
system.
When we abstract the religious ideas from their context we
set out on a road full
of
abstractions. By the time we have formed
these ideas into a system we are building a great house of
abstractions
by
the roadside. When we then
go on
to speak
of
these ideas as forming the profound unity of the
Old
Testament,
.such a house ofabstractions is beginning to grow into a veritable
township The constant danger that faces us,
and
which we
claim
that
all such theologies in varying degrees confirm, is that
our attempts
at
systematising and building a unity take over the
material
that we
are working with to such
an
extent
that
the real
Old Testament becomes submerged by them. This is obviously
one of the reasons why questions
of
introduction and method
ology tend to predominate over questions of content in formu-
lating an Old Testament theology. .
We may conclude from these preliminary remarks that a
theology of the
Old
Testament must be about the religious ideas
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
4/25
4
OLD
TEST MENT
THEOLOGY
contained in this literature. How these ideas are to be sys-
tematised,
and
to what. extent they constitute a unifying factor
in the literature, are questions
that
must be considered in
relation to the nature
of
these writings, and,
in
turn, to the
nature
of
the religion
out
of which these writings emerged. The
constant temptation that faces us is to take short cuts, and in
particular to assume that we can readily pick out ideas and
group them together in a way which will be meaningful for us,
without attention to their proper contexts. One basic danger
signal which ought to
warn
us against doing this,
is the
history
of
~ b l i c l
interpretation. Since other ages have
so
clearly
not
found it easy to isolate an
Old
Testament theology from the
context
of
the literature in which it is set, should we not take
warning that the task may in reality prove to be more difficult
than we have supposed? Are we
not in
fact being guilty of
showing too much confidence
in our
methods of interpretation,
and
too disdainful of older, supposedly pre-critical , methods
of
study that we fail to see obstacles that those who preceded
us saw more clearly
than
we?
It
will therefore be a basic feature
of
our
efforts to find a new approach to the problems
of
Old
Testament
heology
that
we
pay
fuller attention
than is
common
in
such volumes to the way n which Christians,
and
to some
extent Jews also, have actually heard the
Old
Testament
speaking to them theologically.
I
THE
ORIGINS
OF OLD TEST MENT
THEOLOGY
Since the first-century beginnings of the Church, Christians
have consistently retained the
Old
Testament as a part of their
sacred literature for use in worship,
and
have made use of ideas
that are to be found within
it
in their formulations of doctrine.
It
is certainly true that from time to time questions have been
raised about the correctness
of
this,
or
about the terms
in
which
it
should be undertaken. However, with very
f w
serious voices
of dissent, it has remained the basic practice
of
the Christian
Church.
The Old
Testament has formed a part ofits Bible,
and
has been used and understood as such. Even so, whereas the
Old Testament has played a part in the Churchfs worship and
thinking for nineteen hundred years, the conviction
that the
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
5/25
THE PRO LEM
5
best way to allow it to speak theologically
is
to produce an Old
Testament theology
is
a much more recent undertaking.
The roots
of
such an enterprise are to be traced back to the
latter
half
of
the eighteenth century,
and
to the rise
of
a new
awareness
of
historical-critical issues which affect the study
of
the Bible.
3
The outstanding figures here were undoubtedly the
German scholars J
S
Semler
(1725-91)
and J G. Eichhorn
(1752-1827),
who may be regarded as thefou.nding fathers
of
a new critical approach to the literature
of
the Old Testament.
It was Eichhorn s pupil, J P. Gabler
(1753-1826),
who first
argued for a proper distinction between a biblical theology,
which would be concerned with theological ideas in the context
of the biblical setting in which they emerged, and a dogmatic
theology, which would be free to evaluate and develop these
ideas against a wider background of thought.
When
we
pause to think about this distinction we may note
that
it has both strong and weak points.
It
is evidently a strong
point
that
it can take full account of the differing historical and
cultural contexts which separate the biblical world
Jrom our
own. Ideas are not timeless, eternal realities, which can be
assumed to remain constant. They are denoted by words which
are affected by what people intend them to mean, and actually
conceive them to mean, at a particular time. Nowhere is this
more evidently true than in the biblical field where we cannot
take for granted that a biblical writer understood religious
concepts in the same way that we. do. Such a basic concept as
that
of
holiness was undoubtedly viewed
and
interpreted
differently n
an
age where its cultic associations were more
fully understood and felt
than
in one where these have largely
disappeared. Even more dramatically, such an important con
cept as that
of
son
of
God was capable
of
being understood in a
number
of
different ways, and t
is
noteworthy that, even in the
present, the most exacting Christian scholarship has difficulty
in
unravelling what
it
meant
in
the first Christian century.
4
There is clearly a necessity, therefore, that a biblical theology
should be concerned to understand religious ideas in a way that
is
consonant with
that
of the biblical setting in which they are
first found. In order to achieve this most
of
the great disciplines
of
biblical scholarship become necessary. Textual, grammatical,
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
6/25
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
literary, and historical criticism all become important aids to
establishing
the
proper significance of biblical ideas. So also is
the comparative method
an
indispensable means to determining
how concepts
and
ideas were understood
at
a particular time.
The
distinction between biblical and dogmatic theology, there-
fore, is to this extent justified.
Nevertheless, we should also note some significant limitations
in a distinction
of
this kind. Most of all we must note that
it
tends towards the production of two different
kinds of truth ,
which may, for understandable reasons, easily become confused.
From a historical perspective a biblical theology is concerned
with the truth of how a statement or a concept was understood
at a particular time. Yet theology, as a systematic discipline
of the Church, is concerned with the truth about God and his
relationship to mankind. In this sense it is interested
in
things
that may
be
held to be permanently true,
and
are not simply
the expressions of one particular age.
The
distinction would not be a difficult one to maintain were
it
not for two complicating factors.
The
first is
that
the Bible
s
not simply an ancient literature, but a modern one, in that it is
still read
and
used
in
church
and
synagogue.
The
liturgical use
of the Bible affirms
that
it
s
still capable ofspeaking intelligibly
to the modern world,
and
this has to be done with the best,
and
most suitable, translations available. We cannot withhold the
use
of
the Bible, nor can we easily ensure that every one who
hears
it
takes care to hear
in it
only those truths
that
the ancient
writers intended to convey.
This practical obstacle to the production
of
a pure biblical
theology
s
strengthened
by
an even more important religious
consideration. For all who accept the revelatory and authorita-
tive character
of
the Bible, great importance attaches to the
conviction that the sense
that
the original biblical writer
intended to convey is,
in
some recognisable manner, still true.
We can go further
and
argue
that
it
is precisely the raising
of
this issue that lifts the statements of the Bible from the category
of
being religious ideas
and
raises them to the status
of
theology in the true sense: -In other words, theology is some-
thing more than the study of religious ideas, which can be a
purely historical
and
descriptive science,
and
offers some
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
7/25
TH
P R O B L E M
7
measure of evaluation of their truth. We shall have occasion to
consider this aspect of the problem of a biblical theology further
when we have dealt with the second step in the division of the
disciplines
of
a biblical theology.
It
is sufficient here to note
that the terms which Gabler laid down for the production of a
biblical theology leave open a number of issues
and
raise the
question whether what he delineated
is
not something l ss
than
theology
in
the full sense.
If
ideas are to be understood and interpreted in the context
of the age and cultural milieu
in
which they are expressed, then
it
is
not
surprising
that
scholars should have felt
that
a con
siderable
gulf
separates the religious ideas
of
the
Old
Testam:ent
from those of the New.
The
former spans an age of almost a
millennium, whereas the latter extends across little more
than
a century, and is for other reasons more historically compact
and
coherent.
It is
not difficult for us to understand therefore that, shortly
after the time when Gabler argued for a biblical theology,
G. L. Bauer
(1755-1806)
went one stage further
in
contending
that
an
Old Testament theology should be distinguished from
one pertaining to the New Testament. The first volume pre
supposing this distinction
dates from 1796,
and
since
that
time
the definition has become
so
commonplace as to have con
tinued down to the present. Admittedly not every scholar has
been happy with it, and some have sought to re-establish
biblical theology as the basic discipline, and even to propose
Christian theologies
of
the
Old
Testament, as we have already
noted.
t
one time,
in
the second
half
of the nineteenth century,
the whole quest for
an
Old Testament theology was challenged
on
the ground that the goals of such a discipline
can
be better
achieved by a history of Israelite religion. Some of the argu
ments
in
support of this are still worthy of serious reflection,
even though ili:ere are few Christian Old Testament scholars
today who express serious doubts
about
the possibility
of
achieving an
Old
Testament theology.
In spite ofsuch a widely felt consensus
that an Old
Testament
theology
is
a right and proper undertaking for a Christian
scholar to pursue, we ought at this juncture at least to point
out
a certain strangeness in such
an
aim. In
what
sense is the Old
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
8/25
8
.
OLD TESTAMENT
THEOLOGY
Testament a Christian book? By itself it has never constituted
the canon
of
sacred literature
of
the Christian Church.
It
has
always, rather, been the first part of the Christian Bible,
and
never considered to be the entire Bible
of
the Church. Even
i f
we were to think of the very earliest Christian community, as it
existed before the New Testament canon was established, we
must nevertheless recognise
that
the
Old
Testament was seen
and
interpreted
by
means
of
the early Christian gospel
and
teaching.
In
other words something essentially comparable to
the New Testament existed to provide a means by which to
interpret
and
use the writings of the Old Testament. Ifwe say,
with full justification,
that
the Old Testament constituted the
Bible
of
Jesus,
then
this would suggest
that
an
Old
Testament
theology ought, in some fashion, to concern itself with under-
standing how Jesus would have read
and
interpreted these
sacred books. Yet this
s
certainly not what the vast majority of
scholars have meant by
an
Old Testament theology, nor, with
only minor exceptions, has the way
in
which the New Testament
interprets .the
Old
been accorded any significant place
in
such
atheology. All
of
these issues concern historical questions
about
the structure
and
shape of the canon ofthe Bible, which we shall
have occasion to refer to later, but they do raise far reaching
.questions about the possibility of an Old Testament theology.
Admittedly several scholars have noted
in
introducing the
subject of Old Testament theology
that
it needs to be ap-
proached from an open avowal
of
Christian commitment. Yet
it s
this conceding
of
the Christian basis
of
an
Old
Testament
theology
that
needs most careful examination. We might have
concluded
that
some clear treatment would be offered of the
way
in
which Christians have actually used the Old Testament
in
expounding Christian truth, and, most of all, in interpreting
the person
of
Jesus
of
Nazareth. Yet this has hardly ever been
the case, even though,
in
some instances, some guidelines are
provided pointing the way to the New Testament interpreta-
tion of the Old.
At
most we are usually offered some assurance
about the unity of the Bible. Yet
in
fact
s
not the attempt to
produce an
Old
Testament theology in some degree a dis-
avowal
of
belief
in
this
unity? t
puts asunder
what
we believe
God has joined together.
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
9/25
THE
PRO LEM
To
express the matter in this way is undoubtedly more than
a little polemical,
but
the idea of an Old Testament t h o ~ o g y
raises questions which cannot be ignored. Certainly
if
we were
to suppose
that
ail
Old
Testament theology concerns only the
Jewish inheritance of the Christian Church, we should be
sadly misinformed about the content of those works that present
this theology. They do not recount the main ideas and teachings
of
Judaism
s it
existed in New Testament times, and it be
comes important for us to learn something of these from else
where, if we are to come to
an
understanding of how there can
be a unity in the Bible. We have already had occasion to
mention that the pursuit of an
Old
Testament theology has not
been a significant concern
of
Jewish scholarship, neither have
such theologies particularly sought to show us how
Judaism
has used
and
understood its sacred literature. In fact we are
pressed here back into a corner where we must face carefully
what an
Old
Testament theology may be expected to achieve.
What religion, for example,
is
it expected to serve - Judaism,
Christianity,
or
ancient Israel? ,
To answer this might lead us,
on
the one hand, to answer all
three ,
or on
the other hand ancient Israel . Since the Old
Testament, as a canon,
or part
canon, of sacred writings, has
only existed within Judaism
and
Christianity we ought to ex
pect that it should reveal to us something of the reasons which
have led to this canonical use.
It
might be expected to show us
something
of
the way in which Jews and Christians have found
theological meaning
in
this literature.
In
fact, however, the
historical-critical method
of
approach has led to a turning
away from these post-biblical questions to a concern with the
life and thought of ancient Israel and early Judaism in the
period within which the Old Testament was in process
of
formation.
The
result is
that
such a theology has a barrier
imposed upon it which prevents
it
from addressing itself to those
problems which have arisen
by
its actual use
in
Judaism and
Christianity.
We have already questioned the view whether we can speak
at all
of
any systematic, or unified, theology
of
ancient Israel,
although there undoubtedly existed something
that
approxi
mated to it.
The
important questions would appear to be
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
10/25
1
OLD
TEST MENT
THEOLOGY
raised, however, not simply
by
considerations about the nature
of
the writings contained
in
the
Old
Testament,
but by the
nature ofour interest n them. In the modern world,
our
concern
with this literature
and
its theology arise, more
or
l ss ex-
clusively, from the fact that we are either Jews
or
Christians.
There seems no reason
at
all, therefore, why we should not be
clear from the beginning that
our
theological interest has arisen
in this way, and go on to hope that our study
of
Old Testament
theology will illuminate
and
enrich
our
own particular religious
faith. If it
is
the task of theology to serve religion; then these
must be the two primary religions which
an Old
Testament
theology can serve.
This carries us back to the issue of the division into Old and
New Testament theologies as separate biblical disciplines. There
must clearly
be
something distinctly odd
about
a Christian
biblical theology which deals with only one
part
ofthe Church s
canon. Yet this oddness may be justified for one very clear
reason, and this is that the
Old
Testament is that part of the
Bible which the Church shares
in
common withJudaism.
In
the
interests
of
a better mutual understanding,
and
of a dialogue
which is more
than
merely
an
entrenched polemic, there are
very good reasons why Christians
and
Jews should study
the
Old
Testament together, and should seek to understand how
each has drawn from the older faith
and
writings
of
ancient
Israel. If an Old Testament theology is to be justified as a
modern theological discipline, and is to continue to have a
place
in
the theological curriculum of colleges
and
universities,
it must surely be
on
the grounds
that
it can provide a place
of
useful theological encounter between Jewish
and
Christian
faith. In this each should have the opportunity to view its
intellectual convictions in the light
of
the distinctive ancient
religion from which they both sprang,
and
with a reference to
the sacred literature which they
both
continue to use liturgi-
cally. AdInittedly this
is
not
how G. L. Bauer conceived
of
the
discipline taking shape, which was certainly
on
somewhat
narrower lines, but to take the narrower view appears, in the
light
of
the many attempts towritean
Old
Testament theology,
to do l ss than justice to the true nature of theology.
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
11/25
THE PROBLEM
2 HISTORIC L CRITICISM ND THEOLOGIC L METHOD
To
view the task of writing
an Old
Testament theology
in
this
way, undoubtedly raises questions about the extent to which
it
is to be a descriptive science committed to the historical
critical method. It was indeed the very rise
of
this method in the
eighteenth century which led to the search for a historical
biblical theology of this kind. To abandon it now would
certainly be to
throwaway
one
of
the most important tools
of
scholarship which we possess,
and
which it has taken almost
two centuries to develop. As a consideration of the origins
of
the specific attempt to Write
an
Old
Testament theology shows,
this goal was very directly an offshoot of the new critical
approach to the Bible. There can
therefore be no serious justifi
cation for abandoning this critical approach
in
seeking a freer
and more open one in the interests of theology.
The
main point,
however, is not whether proper regard should be paid to
the
historical-critical method, but whether this alone should be
allowed to determine the form
and
structure
of
an
Old
Testa
ment theology.
s we have argued above, there are good
reasons why it should be regarded as proper to theological
method to go beyond this. Nevertheless there are certain basic
features of the historical-critical approach to the Bible which
have a very distinct bearing on the problems
of
an
Old
Testa
ment theology.
We must note here in the first place
that
a fundamental aim
of
historical criticism is to establish
what
should be regarded as
the correct meaning of a text. In this respect
an
interesting
feature of the eighteenth-century background to the new
criticism
is
to be seen in the extensive debate about messianic
prophecy in the earlier part
of
that century. What
is
the
meaning of such a prophecy as
that of
the Immanuel child in
Isaiah 7.14,
and
to
what
extent
can
it properly be called a
messianic prophecy? This raises further questions
in
relation
to the New Testament interpretation
of
such a prophecy in
Matthew 1.23.
In
order to answer such questions most
of
the
basic disciplines of historical-critical research become necessary
since
it
becomes essential to establish the correct text and the
original context
of
such a saying. In
turn
these
can
only be
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
12/25
12
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
reached
by
a thorough examination
ofthe
literary
and
historical
contexts
in
which
the
prophecy was originally given, which
are
dependent
upon
conclusions about
the date
and authorship
of
it. Clearly there must
remain
areas
of
doubt
and
uncertainty
in
deciding some
of
these issues, which
is
highly inconvenient
for theology,
but
there
can be no
way
of
by-passing these
questions.
It
is
absolutely essential, therefore,
that
an
Old
Testament theology should evaluate its material
and
establish
its conclusions
upon the
basis of the results ofhistorical criticism.
n Old Testament theology
that
ignores this would have little
to
commend it, or to command authority.
However, the very methods
and
results
of
historical criticism
show
that
to speak
of the
meaning
of
texts
in
this particular
fashion
is
often far too simple.
Our
example
of Isaiah
7.14,
with its
important
declaration regarding
the Immanuel
child,
highlights this problem very clearly. I t is clear
that Matthew
1 23
interprets
the
prophecy in a very different way,
and in
relation to far later events
than
could have been envisaged in
Isaiah s time
in
the
eighth century
BC
To
treat
the
two pas
sages
s
though they were
not
related to each other, however,
is
to
ignore a very
important
dimension of biblical faith. The
appeal to .ancient scripture, particularly in prophecy, becomes
a widely used technique for demonstrating
the
divine signifi
cance
and
purpose
that is
discerned within events.
If
a theology
is
to be truly biblical
then it
would appear to
be
important to
be
able to show how such different interpretations
of
a saying,
and
very specifically
of
a name, arose.
To what
extent are they
related to each
other?
Already
the Old
Testament shows that
there
is
some kind
of
biblical bridge between the Isaianic
and
Matthean
interpretations
of the
prophecy since
the
book
of
Isaiah contains
other
interpretations
of
the
Immanuel name
(Isa. 8.8,
10;
cf. Mic. 5.3).
The
whole question
of
the in
terpretation of prophecy becomes a complex one in which old
sayings are subjected
to
a continuing process
of
interpretation
and
re-interpretation. The very
demand of
a truly historical
criticism requires
that
we look
at the
biblical dimension
offaith
in all its aspects,
and
seek
to
proceed beyond the view
that
works
with
simple monochrome meanings for sayings. This
is
not to set aside the need for understanding
the
parts of the
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
13/25
THE PROBLEM
3
Bible
in
their respective historical contexts,
but
to use it in
order to link the various parts of the Bible more meaningfully
to each other. One of the most deeply felt, and widely attested,
canons
of
biblical interpretation
in
the Christian Church
and
Jewish Synagogue has been that scripture must be interpreted
by scripture. An Old Testament theology should endeavour
to do this,
and
should make use of the results of biblical criti
cism in order to do so more effectively and intelligently.
In some respects the kind
of
problem illustrated by the aid
of the Immanuel prophecy represents a feature peculiar to the
prophetic literature, but it is certainly
not
restricted to this.
We find many
of
the same features
and
difficulties emerging
when we come to interpret the significance of the divine
proInise to braham
in
Genesis 12.1-3; 15.1-6. The great
importance
of
this
in
the New Testament, and its part in the
Pauline formulation of a doctrine of ustification by faith, need
no further elaboration here. Obviously there are aspects of this
which belong to the specialised area of New Testament studies,
but
they are
not
exclusive to these.
In
the
Old
Testament
literature the theme of the divine proInise to the patriarchs
becomes a motif which re-appears
in several forms and ilt
different times. It becomes very unsatisfactory to attempt to
deal with each of these
in
historical isolation, since there is a
clear consciousness of connection
in
which succeeding genera
tions of Israelites re-appropriated their own faith. A truly
biblical theology ought therefore to concern itself with these
connections,
and
to interpret leading ideas with a real aware
ness of the way
in
which they are developed
in
a wide biblical
context. It becomes clear then that a single historical context
cannot, by itself, deterInine the biblical meaning of a text.
This leads us to consider another way in which historical
criticism has an important contribution to make to the pres
entation
of an
Old Testament theology. A basic feature
of
J
S. Semler s new critical initiative
in
biblical research was to
re-examine the structure of the biblical canon.
6
No longer was
its accepted form to be regarded as the sole level at which
t had
authoritative meaning. As critical scholarship
had
already
begun to sense, and as its wider application was soon to demon
strate more emphatically, the canon
of
the Bible was the result
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
14/25
OLD
TEST MENT
THEOLOGY
of a long process. A great multitude of authors and editors, for
the most
part
unknown to us, composed, revised,
and
shaped
the Bible
in
the form which we now have.
This desire to probe behind the form
of
the biblical writings
to enquire after
an
earlier form of them was related for Semler
to a change in the conception of biblical inspiration. This was _
a shift from a conception
of
Wortinspiration
(inspiration
of the
text) to one
of ealinspiration
(inspiration
of
the subject).7
It
led
to a fresh concern with sources, and to the raising of new
questions about who the original authors
of
a document or
saying were.
The
result has certainly been to complicate yet
further the problems associated with the interpretation
of
leading themes
and
ideas
of
the Bible. Instead
of
looking
at the
biblical books
s
relatively uniform
and
self-contained
r e a l i t ~ e s
it
becomes clear that a great history lies hidden within them.
The
book of Isaiah, for example, is
not
a uniform document
dictated, or penned, by one man, but a great collection of
material built
up
around the great prophetic ministry of the
eighth-century Isaiah
of
Jerusalem. So also the Pentateuch is
formed
out
of
a multiplicity
of
source material.
t may ~
likened
in
many respects to an anthology of anthologies, for
so
much of the central core of Israelite religious tradition has been
preserved there.
The result is that today, it is no longer sufficient for us to
view the biblical writings as expressive
of
single interpretations,
which may then subsequently have been
added
to. Already a
complex history
of
meaning lies contained
in
the traditions
which underlie the text of scripture.
Of
course
not
all texts are
so fraught with meaning, but it becomes clear
on
examination,
that
it is precisely those major thematic conceptions such as
the divine promise to Abraham, God s revelation to Israel
at
Sinai
and
his promise
of
rebirth
out of
Babylonian exile which
have been the subject of such extensive elaboration and de
velopment.
In
some respects to speak
of
clear doctrines
associated with such themes is mocked by the great variety of
insights
and
images which are employed to affirm them
in
the
Bible. There is a sense; therefore, in which the theological need
to provide circumscribed accounts
of what
the
Old
Testament
means by such great key-words
s
covenant , salvation and
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
15/25
THE
PROBLEM
peace is too abstract and limited an undertaking to do justice
to their proper biblical setting. It is essential, therefore,
that an
Old Testament theology should retain a proper consciousness
of
the literary setting
of
the material
it
utilises, rather
than
to
seek a body of quite abstract doctrines .
All of these factors bring us back to a fundamental considera
tion about the aim and purpose of an Old Testament theology.
t should be concerned to provide some degree of theological
insight and significance in relation to the
Old
Testament
literature which we have. This canonical form of the literature
represents the norm , if only n the sense that
it
represents the
way in which the Old Testament is read and interpreted in the
Jewish and Christian communities.
To
probe behind this
canonical form is important,
and
should provide a basis for
obtaining a better understanding
of
it, s also
is
the way in
which this canonical form has subsequently been understood
and interpreted in Jewish and Christian tradition. The ques
tions of tradition and canon are interrelated, since the canon of
the Old Testament represents a kind
of
freezing
oftlte
tradi
tion
that
was central to Israelite-Jewish religion at a critical
moment in its history.
3. THE OLD TEST MENT S C NON
All of these considerations lead us to recognise the great im
portance
that
attaches to the form, function and concept of the
Old Testament s canon.
It
has therefore been a welcome
feature ofrecent approaches to the problem ofbiblicaltheology
to have rediscovered the notion of canon s a central feature of
the Old Testament, which must be allowed to play its
part
in
the presentation of an Old Testament theology.s t a very
basic level we can see that it is because the Old Testament
forms a canon, and is not simply a collection of ancient Near
Eastern documents,
that
we
can
expect to find
in it
a theology ,
and
not
just a report of ancient religious ideas. There is a real
connection between the ideas of canon and theology , for it is
the status of these writings s a canon of sacred scripture that
marks them out s containing a word of God that is still
believed to be authoritative. There are good reasons, therefore,
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
16/25
16
OLD TEST MENT
THEOLOGY
why it matters a great deal that the historical and literary
problems relating to the formation
and
acceptance of the canon
should occupy a place
in
our discussion.
One
point becomes immediately clear,
and
this is
that
the
date of composition of a document, or writing, in the Old
Testament does not, of itself, determine its place in the canon
Similarly where, as is supremely the case
in
the Pentateuch,
there is evidence
that
a great multitude of sources have been
used to create the extant whole, then we are in a real way
committed to trying to understand this whole, rather than to
elucidating the separate parts.
Perhaps most of all, however, the concern with canon forces
us to realise that the Old Testament has a distinctive, and
in
many ways unexpected, shape. This becomes clearest
as
soon
as we follow
out
the guideline provided
by
the Hebrew (Jewish)
shape of the canon, which must be accorded full authority as
the oldest, and most basic, form of it. The earliest Christian
Church took over the Old Testament in its Greek (Alexandrine)
form, whereas the separation betweenJudaism
and
Christianity
led Judaism to revert exclusively to the Hebrew (Palestinian)
form. In spite
of
many problems and historical obscurities con
cerning the way in which the formation of the canon developed
in the first century BC and in the ensuing century, we may
confidently recognise that this Palestinian form of the canon
represents the oldest, and most basic, form of the Old Testa
ment.
In
this it
is
made up of three separate parts: the Penta
teuch, or torah, the Prophets (later subdivided into the
Former
and
Latter Prophets),
and
the Writings. These three
parts correspond to three levels of authority, with the Penta
teuch standing at the highest level, the Prophets below this and
the Writings further down still. When therefore the New
Testament characterises the entire Old Testament
as
a book
of ,Law' (Greek nomos translating Hebrew
torah
this reflects the
canonical priority accorded to the Pentateuch.
In
a similar
fashion the characterising of the historical narratives from
Joshua to 2 Kings as 'Prophets' is not without significance when
it comes to understanding them as a whole.
From a literary perspective, enlightened by historical criti
cism, one fel;l ture becomes very marked in regard to the struc-
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
17/25
THE PRO LEM
ture of the canon. This is that each part contains material from
very different ages, spread rather broadly over the period from
1000 BC
to approximately 200 BC
or
a little later. Age
is
not
of
itself therefore a determinative factor
in
explaining why
particular books are in the part of the canon where they are
now found.
n addition to this we also discover as a result of source
criticism
that
there are interesting areas of overlap between
some
of
the circles to which we must ascribe authorship
of
parts
of the Pentateuch
and
Prophets. This is most evident in regard
to the book ofDeuteronomy
in
the Pentateuch and the Deuter-
onomic character of prominent editorial tendencies in the
Former and Latter Prophets. Other literary affinities are also
to be seen, as for example between some psalms
and
certain
parts
of
the prophetic corpus.
Yet further literary puzzles reveal themselves, for llistorical-
literary criticism shows us that the Pentateuch has in some
respects acquired its canonical status in a curious reverse order.
There is widespread agreement
that
the book
of
Deutetonomy,
the last book of the Pentateuch, was the first to acquire canoni-
cal status, albeit in a somewhat different form from that which
it
now has. Furthermore
it is
now widely accepted that
it
once
was joined on to form the first chapter of a work which
stretched from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings, and thus combined
the Law and the Prophets . The point need not be explored
further here, although its consequences will be referred to again
later. For
our
immediate concern
it is
sufficient to note that the
canonical shape of the Old Testament cannot be assigned to
the result of accident, nor to a simple process of aggregation of
documentary material until
it
formed a massive whole. There
is evidently some design and system about the shape that has
been accorded to the material.
Our
concern
at
this juncture
is
to draw attention to the way
in
which the structure
of
the canon affects its interpretation.
s the canon is primarily made up ofthe Law and the Prophets,
so its contents are broadly to be interpreted as either Law or
Prophecy . n fact
we
quickly discover that Law is a some-
what inadequate term by which to reproduce the Hebrew
torah but
a legal connotation
is not
altogether to be discounted.
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
18/25
18
OLD
TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
So far as interpretation is concerned, we
:find
that the categories
of 'Law' and Prophecy are not rigidly restricted to their
separate parts
of
the canon, but each tends to spill over to
affect other parts. Hence we find, for example,
in
Matthew
I L I
that
'the Law
and the Prophets are both said to proph
esy , so that parts of the Pentateuch can be treated as
prophecy. Similarly we :find
in
Mark 2.23-8, for example, that
a narrative from the Former Prophets is made into
an
affirma
tion of a law , or taTah Even more importantly from the point
of view of understanding the New Testament use of the
Old
we :find
that
numerous passages from the Psalms
can
be treated
as prophecy cf. Acts 2.25-8, etc.).
The
details of these cate
gories of interpretation need not detain us at this point, since it
is sufficient for our purpose to note the way
in
which the shape
which is given to the canon has served to establish an elemen
tary, but significant, basis for interpretation.
The
literary
context inevitably serves to create a basis
of
deological context,
for the
Old
Testament was not meant to be read as a collection
of
independent
'proof
texts ,
but
as a series
of
three great
literary wholes. This
is in
line with the contention we have
already mentioned that scripture should
be
interpreted
by
scripture.
, Another point also falls to
be
considered
in
relation to the
canon.
fOld
Testament theology is intended to be
an
examina
tion of the theological significance of the Old Testament as it
now exists as a canon, then this supports our view that it should
not be a purely historical discipline concerned only with the
world of ancient Israel and
Judaism
in which this canon was in
process of formation.
Rather it
must address itself to those
religious communities who accept and use this canon as a
central feature of their religious life. This points us to both
Judaism and Christianity as the religious communities who can
be expected to concern themselves with the Old
Testament
as
theology.
In this light we cannot remain altogether indifferent to the
liturgical use made of the Old Testament within these com
munities. This, too, provides part of the context
in
which the
Old Testament is understood. t is inevitable that the situation
in
worship
in
which the
Old
Testament is read, as well as the
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
19/25
THE PROBLEM
9
particular choice and ordering of it, play a
part
in its being
heard as the word of God. The 1 and Thou of scripture
become readily identifiable with the 1 and Thou of worship
in
which God addresses
man and
vice versa,
and
it
is
of
the
utmost imp()rtance that the theological justification for this
identification should be considered. We cannot tolerate a
divorce between theology and liturgy, and we cannot therefore
be indifferent to the way
in
which the Old Testament is used
liturgically. A very clear example of this need for a theological
reflection upon liturgical use
is
provided
by
the Psalter
and
its
extensive employment in Christian worship.
However, the issue does
not
end there,
but
affects the whole
use of the Old Testament, as is most strikingly exemplified by
the use of messianic prophecies
in
Christian Advent services.
A wide range of theological questions are raised, which relate
to the canonical form
and
use
of
the
Old
Testament. We cannot
in consequence leave the question of the canon out ofreckoning
in an Old Testament theology. On the contrary, it is precisely
the concept
of
canon
that
raises questions about the authority
of the Old Testament,
and
its ability to present us with a
theology which can still be meaningful
in
the twentieth century.
If
we restrict ourselves solely to reading the
Old
Testament as
an ancient text, and endeavour to hear in it nothing that the
ancient author could
not
have intended, then we should be
denying something of the tradition which asserts that God has
continued to speak to his people through it.
In
reality we do
not
need to insist
on
such a rigidly historicising approach,
if
we
believe
that the Old Testament does present
us
with a revela
tion
of
the eternal God.
4 . .THE OLD
TESTAMENT
AND THE BIBLE
We have already pointed out
that
the Old Testament is not, by
itself, the Bible
of
Christians, although
it
forms a very sub
stantial part
of
it. On the other
hand it
does represent the Bible
ofJews for whom it is the whole scripture. Accordingly, we have.
suggested that one reason for undertaking the writing of an Old
Testament theology should be in order to explore that
part
of
the biblical heritage which Jews and Christians share in com-
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
20/25
2
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
mono Although this concern has played some part
in
the quest
for an Old Testament theology, it has, however, not usually
been a very large one. Rather, the overriding factor which has
stimulated such a quest has been the historical awareness
that
a chronological gap separates the Old from the New Testament.
That
this gap also marks the period
at
which Christianity broke
free from Judaism has been treated as relatively incidental to
this. A number of considerations, however, lead us to suggest
that itis
now time to re-examine this orientation of the subject
of Old Testament theology
and
to approach it with somewhat
different aims.
The
first
of
these
is
that
it
is
in
the very nature
of
theology
to concern itself with living faith, rather than with the history
of ideas, which belongs more appropriately to the field of
religious phenomenology. T1 te latter
is
certainly important for
theology, especially
in
its historical aspects, but
it
lacks the
evaluative role
of
theology. We are, therefore,
in
seeking
an
Old
Testament theology, concerned with the theological
significance
h i h
this literature
possesses
in
the modern world,
which points us to an openness to its role in Judaism and
Christianity. In many respects such a theology should serve as
a critique of such a role, where it
is
able to employ the insights
of historical criticism to correct misunderstandings and errors.
So also it will note differences and mark contrasts, seeking out
the ways in which patterns of interpretation and continuity
have diverged. This is not to abandon the historical-critical
role which the founders
of
biblical theology
so
eagerly sought,
but rather to relate
it
to those areas ofreligious debate in which
alone it can be theologically meaningful.
Certainly we, must concede
that
there
is
a place, and even a
necessity, for the study ofIsraelite-Jewish religion in the period
from its beginnings to the close of the
Old
Testament canon.
Yet this must be the province of a history of religion , rather
than
of
theology as such,
if
only because the form
and
structure
of that religion now belong to the past and can never be re
covered. Most obviously this relates to the cultic nature
of
the
ancient Jewish religion,with its centre and natural focus on the
temple ofJerusalem and all the apparatus
of
worship
that
was
conducted there. Questions of the significance
of
temple, priest-
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
21/25
THE
PROBLEM
21
hood, sacrifice, and a host ofother rituals all devolve upon this.
The shift from the time of the
Old
Testament to that of the
New and beyond is a shift from the religion of a cult to the
religion
of
a book.
It
is this change which raises all the essential
issues of an Old Testament theology, since
it
gives rise to the
question whether any genuine continuity of faith and tradition
is possible as a result of it. Very basic questions of theology are
concerned with religious continuity, and hence with the claims
to continuity voiced
in
Judaism
and
Christianity.
It
is
not
without significance in this connection that
we
find
that the great areas of controversy which the Bible discloses to
us - Israelite
and
Canaanite,
Jew
and
Samaritan,
Jew
and
Christian - are controversies of this kind. They involve ques
tions ofwhere the lines ofcontinuity are to be drawn. The claim
that
it is through its theology that the Old Testament retains
its authority
and
significance for
us is
no doubt true,
but it
raises the question as to
what
this theology is and how
it
can
exist and be authoritative as theology, outside of the cult which
formed its cradle.
It is an outworking of this concern with continuity of tradi
tion
that
reveals itself
in
the Christian concern with beliefin the
unity which binds together the
Old
and New Testaments.
Concern with this unity, at the level of theological ideas and
not simply historical conjunction, must be a basic area of
interest for a Christian biblical theology. Yet it immediately
faces us with one of the most far-reaching and disconcerting of
problems.
It
was
of
the utmost importance to the writers
of
the
literature
of
the New Testament to argue that
what
had been
revealed to them, through Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, was
of a piece with the revelation that God had made in the Old
Testament. More than this, it represented the fulfilment of
that earlier history of revelation. The means by which the New
Testament writers endeavour to demonstrate this, by presenting
Jesus as
the new Moses , the bringer
of
the kingdom
of
God ,
and the Messiah foretold
by
the prophets, among other such
themes, involves a type ofbiblical interpretation which conflicts
with that acceptable to a strict historical-critical science.
9
The
result has been that, whereas to understand this method of
interpretation has become ofkey importance to New Testament
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
22/25
OLD
TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
scholars, it has largely been discounted
in
the search for an Old
Testament theology. Instead, other, often quite different, parts
of the Old Testament have been appealed to in order to show
the continuity between the two Testaments. Even more broadly
an appeal has frequently been made by Christians to a kind
of
natural historical progression from the age of the Old Testa-
ment to
that
of the New.
The problems here are real, and are not easily to be evaded,
since t is a matter of importance to Christianity to assert this
unity of the Bible. Yet this is clearly an area in which a concern
with the structure and shaping
of
the Old Testament canon,
and
the hermeneutical consequ.ences
of
this, have a considerable
amount to offer towards a theological study of the Old Testa-
ment. So also does it lead us to a deep concern with the inter-
testamental period of ewish life and thought, even though such
an adjective must fall strangely
on
Jewish ears. It
is an
un-
fortunate consequence
of
the neglect by biblical theologians
of
the emergence and growth
of
early Jewish interpretation
of
the
Old Testament that has contributed to this disregard
of
the
way
in
which the New Testament interprets the Old. It does
in
fact briyg
us
to recognise the real connections
that
exist
between early Jewish
and
early Christian exegesis, so
that
each
comes to command a new respect from the point of view
of
the
biblical theologian. Certainly we cannot, as Christians, be
altogether happy with a situation
in
which we cling resolutely
to the Old Testament
as
a
part
of
our
religious heritage, but
almost totally disregard the reasons
and
arguments which led
the earliest Christians to claim the
Old
Testament
as
their book.
The Christian therefore does not, and should not, pretend that
the Old Testament is his entire Bible, since this has never been
the case. It is in contrast, by way
of
the New Testament
that
he comes to claim the Old. We shall have opportunity to
explore more fully some
of
the consequences
of
this for
an Old
Testament theology later.
For Jewish faith, however, there also exists a foundational
guide and groundwork for the interpretation
of
the Old.
Testament in the Mishnah and Talmud. These lay down the
guidelines by which the continuity of Judaism with the Old
Testament
is
asserted. t is not necessary, nor possible, to
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
23/25
THE PRO LEM
3
explore the consequences of this here. What is important to
note
is that some such hermeneutical bridge becomes essential
if
we are to find a theology in the
Old
Testament which
can
be
meaningful
in
the modern world
apart
from the cultic
and
institutional life
in
which
it
originated.
The
transition from the
religion of a cult to the religion of a book, which we find taking
place
in
the later
Old
Testament period, is an immense theo
logical achievement.
Far
from regarding it as
an
incidental
development, in which Judaism discarded a cultic dress for
which it no longer
had any
use, we find
that
it lies at the very
heart of what theology is.
The
belief
that
God is real, present
and
knowable, aside from all the rites
and
symbols
by
which the
cult disclosed his activity, marks the very foundation of theology
as such. No longer are religious ideas appealed to
in
support
of
symbolic actions
and
realities, but they themselves become a
more direct avenue of approach to God. This is the develop
ment which the Old Testament made possible,
and
which has
enabled both Judaism
and
Christianity to become universal
~ e l i g i o n s which are truly theological
in
their nature.
We noted
at
the beginning
of
this chapter
that
the quest for
an
Old
Testament theology has consistently been compelled to
concern itself with the grasping of unity
in
the
Old
Testament
and the use of this
in
presenting a systematic approach to the
religious ideas which are to be found there. In many respects
this becomes the major question affecting the overall form of
the material which is then to be presented. Yet the Old Testa
ment
has little formal unity
of
ideas,
and
does
not
arrange them,
or relate
them
to each other,
in any
obviously systematic
fashion.
It
is
in
fact the theologian, by his approach, who must
do this. Ultimately we believe that it is the nature
and
being
of God himself which establishes a unity
in
the Old Testament,
even though this
is
to place the resolution
of
the issue beyond
the actual written pages of the
Old
Testament.
The
implica
tions of this are quite far-reaching
in
their consequences, for
it
appears
that
the drawing of the lines of a theology and the
search for unity
and
a system of religious ideas are so closely
interrelated as scarcely to be separable.
The
belief that God
exists,
and that
he
is
active
in
the world
of
men, leads us to
accept
that
we shall see the signs
and
effects of his activity. We
O T T B
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
24/25
24
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
shall expect all such signs and effects to be coherent and con
sistent,
and
yet this coherence
and
consistency will be dependent
upon what
we take such signs
and
effects to be.
The
two
questions become interconnected,
and
it
is
the importance
of
not allowing one
part,
or text, of the Bible to override all
others that has led interpreters of past ages to insist
that
we
must interpret scripture by scripture.
The
Christian who accepts
belief
in
the unity
of
the whole Christian Bible, must inevitably
allow
that
this will affect his understanding of unity
in
the
Old
Testament, yet
it
ought
not
to blind him to recognising other
ways of tracing this unity. In this regard, far from regarding s
irrelevant attention to the ways
in
which Jews
and
Christians
of
post-biblical times have approached the Old Testament, such
approaches serve as an
important
check
on
more modern,
and
historically critical, avenues of study.
We ought,
in
consequence of this, to be wary of allowing a
concern with unity and a systematic account of the religious
ideas of the
Old
Testament to become a determinative frame
work into, which everything is fitted. Regrettably all such
structures seem doomed to be circular. Where we begin will
determine . where we will end
up. Rather
we must, in the
interests of a truly historical and critical approach, submit to
becoming less systematic
than
this, and more open to trace the
broken lines of unity where the Old Testament draws them. In
doing this we can then see how far they connect
up
with the
more firmly
drawn
lines which later ages have found there.
In
particular, this must concern the great themes
of
Law
and
Promise which have exercised so profound an influence
upon
the understanding and interpretation of the Old Testament.
, We may also note the importance of the theological study of
the Old Testament to the questions of biblical authority and its
use
in
liturgy. Here too the issues are interrelated, since
it is
out
of a sense of the authority of the
Old
Testament
that
its litur
gical use
can
continQe to be justified. Already we have suffi
ciently stressed
that it
is through its theological content that the
Old
Testament
can
be claimed as authoritative for us. However
important we may regard
its
historical
and
aesthetic literary
qualities to be, and consequently deserving of scholarly atten
tion, these
xe not
the reasons which have led to its being
7/26/2019 Teologa de Clemente de Alejandra
25/25
THE
PRO LEM
5
claimed as an authoritative part of the Christian revelation,
nor
as
the central religious focus
ofJ
udaism. Yet the questions
of how God has spoken
in
this literature,
and
how his voice may
still be heard through it, are questions
of
theology.
They
are
also questions which are bound up with the way in which parts
of the Old Testament are used in liturgy. Especially is this a
very relevant issue for Christianity on account of the great
freedom with which the Old Testament either does, or does
not, play a part
in
the multiplicity of liturgical forms
in
use
in
Christian Churches. Such liturgical use provides a very signifi-
cant groundwork and context
of
interpretation, which may
either help,
or
hinder, a positive understanding
of
the
text.
It
is important, therefore, that some degree of theological, as well
as aesthetic, insight should be accorded to the
Old
Testament
when it is used liturgically
in
the Christian Church. Once again
it is a question of how
we
are still to
hear
in this literature the
authentic voice ofone who is not simply the God of Israel , but
more fully
and
universally God .